Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Pistol or Blunderbuss for a ranged Rogue?

Crucis

Posted 24 April 2015 - 09:16 AM

Crucis

(10) Necromancer

Members

1597 posts

The drawback to shooting in melee is that you could be doing so much more damage with melee weapons. A ranged focus rogue, even with the Gunner talent and not having Two Weapon Style, can still get in four or five sabre attacks dual-wielding in the time it takes them to recover, reload, and shoot their pistol again. Even without any melee boosting talents or abilities, you're still going to out damage the rogue who stands there shooting in point blank range. The fact that you might be able to slow down your enemy's attacks through interrupts is just a side benefit (incidentally, the lower interrupt rating of fast weapons is almost perfectly compensated for by their increased attack speed).

Or you could use a second, faster firing ranged weapon for after you've fired your slow loader. That way you could keep up a high rate of fire.

Luckmann

Posted 24 April 2015 - 09:54 AM

Luckmann

Arch-Mage

Members

3497 posts

Location:The Scanian Flatlands

Already suggested that. I'd even go so far as to say that if you fear enemies getting into melee, just save those extra weapon slots for unloading three shots in a row into someone. I have no idea who'd survive that.

Fessels

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:09 AM

Fessels

(2) Evoker

Members

65 posts

Location:Netherlands

Pistol vs Blunderbuss? Neither. Arquabus or Arbalest. Why? Greater range means that if you manage things correctly, you can take the first shot of a battle (which should automatically be a sneak attack) from BEHIND your primary tank, thus causing the enemy to attack him and not your rogue. Also, I'd go for high single shot damage so that your sneak attacks (and regular attacks) only have to pen the target's DR once, rather than multiple times as the blunderbuss does (I think).

Yeah but as I mentioned I picked Weapon Focus: Ruffian not Soldier. Even if I try and see if I can change that through IE Mod then I would only have two plus points from that weapon focus. Ruffian is completely useful for a Rogue, ( In my opinion that is. ) while Soldier would only make Arbalest and Arquebus useful for my Hearth Orlan Rogue. Again this is just my personal opinion, so it may not be yours or others.

Kaigen42

Posted 24 April 2015 - 10:19 AM

Kaigen42

(3) Conjurer

Members

199 posts

Or you could use a second, faster firing ranged weapon for after you've fired your slow loader. That way you could keep up a high rate of fire.

Even a Hunting Bow fires slower than you can swing a pair of sabers. Ranged weapons aren't designed to deal as much damage as melee weapons; that's the price you pay for attacking with relative safety. And the thing about the ranged rogue is that, with the exception of Penetrating Shot, anything you get that makes your ranged weapons more damaging also makes your melee attacks more damaging, and anything else that exclusively applies to your ranged attacks either doesn't work in melee range (Marksman) or only tries to make them less slow (Gunner)

Already suggested that. I'd even go so far as to say that if you fear enemies getting into melee, just save those extra weapon slots for unloading three shots in a row into someone. I have no idea who'd survive that.

If you're willing to make the investment to get three or four weapon slots, maybe, but on PotD difficulty I don't see two shots, even from a Rogue, being a reliable way to put down someone who gets into melee with you.

Crucis

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:20 AM

Crucis

(10) Necromancer

Members

1597 posts

Pistol vs Blunderbuss? Neither. Arquabus or Arbalest. Why? Greater range means that if you manage things correctly, you can take the first shot of a battle (which should automatically be a sneak attack) from BEHIND your primary tank, thus causing the enemy to attack him and not your rogue. Also, I'd go for high single shot damage so that your sneak attacks (and regular attacks) only have to pen the target's DR once, rather than multiple times as the blunderbuss does (I think).

Yeah but as I mentioned I picked Weapon Focus: Ruffian not Soldier. Even if I try and see if I can change that through IE Mod then I would only have two plus points from that weapon focus. Ruffian is completely useful for a Rogue, ( In my opinion that is. ) while Soldier would only make Arbalest and Arquebus useful for my Hearth Orlan Rogue. Again this is just my personal opinion, so it may not be yours or others.

Sorry, I only read the first paragraph of your post.

I don't want to be buttonholed into any single WF set with a rogue. It's not too big a deal for melee characters as their choices aren't usually too constricting. But with ranged specialists like ranged rogues and rangers, getting stuck with single WF set forces you to either stick with that WF set's choices or you ignore that oh-so-nice +6 accuracy bonus to use weapons outside of the WF set.

Honestly, I haven't picked a WF for my rogue for this reason. It's let me switch from having her use a crossbow to an arquabus, to considering using a warbow as a secondary ranged weapon without having to feel the pain of losing a +6 WF set bonus for doing so.

This is a reason why I said in another thread that I'm growing to dislike the existing WF groups as currently constituted.

Luckmann

Posted 24 April 2015 - 11:57 AM

Luckmann

Arch-Mage

Members

3497 posts

Location:The Scanian Flatlands

If you're willing to make the investment to get three or four weapon slots, maybe, but on PotD difficulty I don't see two shots, even from a Rogue, being a reliable way to put down someone who gets into melee with you.

I didn't argue from a PotD perspective, though, in which case we'd be dealing with completely different assumptions. I always argue on the basis of Easy-to-Hard, because that's the baseline before the computer starts to pull blanket cheating in terms of stat inflation and artificial boosts. If we were talking about PotD, I wouldn't even consider Blunderbi or Pistols, I'd build the entire thing differently; but the OP set us up with some very clear boundries.

Fessels

Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:26 PM

Fessels

(2) Evoker

Members

65 posts

Location:Netherlands

Pistol vs Blunderbuss? Neither. Arquabus or Arbalest. Why? Greater range means that if you manage things correctly, you can take the first shot of a battle (which should automatically be a sneak attack) from BEHIND your primary tank, thus causing the enemy to attack him and not your rogue. Also, I'd go for high single shot damage so that your sneak attacks (and regular attacks) only have to pen the target's DR once, rather than multiple times as the blunderbuss does (I think).

Yeah but as I mentioned I picked Weapon Focus: Ruffian not Soldier. Even if I try and see if I can change that through IE Mod then I would only have two plus points from that weapon focus. Ruffian is completely useful for a Rogue, ( In my opinion that is. ) while Soldier would only make Arbalest and Arquebus useful for my Hearth Orlan Rogue. Again this is just my personal opinion, so it may not be yours or others.

Sorry, I only read the first paragraph of your post.

I don't want to be buttonholed into any single WF set with a rogue. It's not too big a deal for melee characters as their choices aren't usually too constricting. But with ranged specialists like ranged rogues and rangers, getting stuck with single WF set forces you to either stick with that WF set's choices or you ignore that oh-so-nice +6 accuracy bonus to use weapons outside of the WF set.

Honestly, I haven't picked a WF for my rogue for this reason. It's let me switch from having her use a crossbow to an arquabus, to considering using a warbow as a secondary ranged weapon without having to feel the pain of losing a +6 WF set bonus for doing so.

This is a reason why I said in another thread that I'm growing to dislike the existing WF groups as currently constituted.

You do have a point there, I might try that with another ranged character in the future. Would solve the dilemma of which weapon to choose, simply use the best weapon you find and like ... nice I will remember that.

Kaigen42

Posted 24 April 2015 - 12:56 PM

Kaigen42

(3) Conjurer

Members

199 posts

I didn't argue from a PotD perspective, though, in which case we'd be dealing with completely different assumptions. I always argue on the basis of Easy-to-Hard, because that's the baseline before the computer starts to pull blanket cheating in terms of stat inflation and artificial boosts. If we were talking about PotD, I wouldn't even consider Blunderbi or Pistols, I'd build the entire thing differently; but the OP set us up with some very clear boundries.

Fair enough. The point I'm trying to make is that one shouldn't assume that just because your build is ranged focused, that you will be more effective shooting rather than switching to melee weapons. Likewise, you shouldn't assume that because there is no additional penalty for shooting someone in melee range, that it is just as effective as switching to melee weapons. You have already accepted a damage penalty just by choosing to use ranged weapons in favor of melee. It's a good tradeoff with a lot of benefits, but if an enemy is in melee range, you're not getting any of the benefits of using a ranged weapon, so you might as well switch to a melee weapon for better damage. Now, the spike damage of swapping between firearms might be sufficient to put down the enemy that's in your face, but I wouldn't bet on it with only two weapon slots, even on normal difficulty.

Exoduss

Posted 24 April 2015 - 03:07 PM

Exoduss

(4) Theurgist

Members

325 posts

Use a bow for rogue , not a hunting bow but a warbow - Fast attacks more crits ! rogue is all about crits . You will do more dps with Warbow than with Switching weapons that works for rogue only because of the skills and talents like dirty/vicious fighting , deep wounds and etc , on the other hand ranger is quite the opposite you never want a ranger with bow and you always want him to have atleast 3 fire arms . This is proven points in this game , if for some reason you want rogue using guns then Blunderbuss is way superior for first 3 switches and after that just use anything that has reload speed increased .

KDubya

Posted 24 April 2015 - 07:28 PM

KDubya

(10) Necromancer

Members

1543 posts

Use a bow for rogue , not a hunting bow but a warbow - Fast attacks more crits ! rogue is all about crits . You will do more dps with Warbow than with Switching weapons that works for rogue only because of the skills and talents like dirty/vicious fighting , deep wounds and etc , on the other hand ranger is quite the opposite you never want a ranger with bow and you always want him to have atleast 3 fire arms . This is proven points in this game , if for some reason you want rogue using guns then Blunderbuss is way superior for first 3 switches and after that just use anything that has reload speed increased .

Where are all your written in stone laws for rogues and rangers?

How do you see rogues better with bows and rangers better with guns?

A rogue gets two talent/abilities that get you 20% hit to crit, that is it A ranger with vicious shot and stalker link gets +20 accuracy.

Rogues are all about the sneak attack bonus, they do not have a better critical rate than a ranger.

As the first "captain obvious" poster here the OP asked a specific question about two specific weapons. The answer may be obvious to you but since the OP was asking I'd assume that it was not obvious to him.

Crucis

Posted 24 April 2015 - 07:41 PM

Crucis

(10) Necromancer

Members

1597 posts

But second, more importantly, for that note on your Stiletto backups, Pillars of Eternity does not have any penalty for shooting in melee, for some daft and utterly bizarre reason. So you will likely never be in a situation where you'll need to switch over to another weapon set.

It does in a way. The Wood Elf racial and the talent Marksman don't work in melee and seeing how most melee weapons are good at interrupting while most ranged weapons are vulnerable to interrupts, there is a sort of built-in drawback to having a gun in your hand when someones flails at you violently in close range

Removing a conditional bonus is not the same thing as imposing a penalty. The conditionals imposed to Woodie racials and the Marksman Talent are balancing factors, not circumstantial penalties. Also, this still means that there is no difference between shooting someone at point-blank range and to get out your melee weapons. Once engaged, you have lost those bonuses, anyway (and, indeed, did so as soon as the opponent was within 4 metres) and you gain nothing by switching to melee weapons - which was the point I was making.

If you are specialized for ranged combat, the idea that you will switch to melee weapons for added Interrupt appears positively pathetic, judging by trade-offs. Interrupts are rare and ****ty, either way, and it won't make a difference to you in the end. Then you might as well switch to an Arbalest instead and it's 0,75 sec Interrupt, if that's what you're after.

This seems like semantics to me. If you're playing a Wood Elf ranged specialist (whether rogue or ranger) and you're predicating your build on the Wood Elf's range bonuses, losing those bonuses because the enemy gets in your face seems rather like a penalty to me, whether it's called one or not. Also, IIRC, the Marksman talent gives its acc bonus vs distant targets, so that's another bonus that would be lost if an enemy gets in your face when you're a ranged combatant. Whether it's an outright penalty or the loss of a bonus, the result is the same, a loss of accuracy due to being at close range when you're a ranged combatant intending to fight at a distance.

As for whether you have "nothing to gain" by switching to melee weapons, arguably you very well could have something to gain. If you switch to a one-handed weapon with nothing in the off-hand, you'll get an accuracy bonus. Or you could choose to use a shield with that 1H weapon to get a greater deflection bonus. Or you could switch to a pair of weapons. Or you could switch to a 2H weapon, though I'm not sure that you'd gain much there. It seems to me that there are plenty of advantages to be had, not even factoring in the possibility that your melee weapon of choice may have some nice effects that make it more worth using than your ranged weapon.

Luckmann

Posted 25 April 2015 - 12:30 AM

Luckmann

Arch-Mage

Members

3497 posts

Location:The Scanian Flatlands

But second, more importantly, for that note on your Stiletto backups, Pillars of Eternity does not have any penalty for shooting in melee, for some daft and utterly bizarre reason. So you will likely never be in a situation where you'll need to switch over to another weapon set.

It does in a way. The Wood Elf racial and the talent Marksman don't work in melee and seeing how most melee weapons are good at interrupting while most ranged weapons are vulnerable to interrupts, there is a sort of built-in drawback to having a gun in your hand when someones flails at you violently in close range

Removing a conditional bonus is not the same thing as imposing a penalty. The conditionals imposed to Woodie racials and the Marksman Talent are balancing factors, not circumstantial penalties. Also, this still means that there is no difference between shooting someone at point-blank range and to get out your melee weapons. Once engaged, you have lost those bonuses, anyway (and, indeed, did so as soon as the opponent was within 4 metres) and you gain nothing by switching to melee weapons - which was the point I was making.

If you are specialized for ranged combat, the idea that you will switch to melee weapons for added Interrupt appears positively pathetic, judging by trade-offs. Interrupts are rare and ****ty, either way, and it won't make a difference to you in the end. Then you might as well switch to an Arbalest instead and it's 0,75 sec Interrupt, if that's what you're after.

This seems like semantics to me. If you're playing a Wood Elf ranged specialist (whether rogue or ranger) and you're predicating your build on the Wood Elf's range bonuses, losing those bonuses because the enemy gets in your face seems rather like a penalty to me, whether it's called one or not. Also, IIRC, the Marksman talent gives its acc bonus vs distant targets, so that's another bonus that would be lost if an enemy gets in your face when you're a ranged combatant. Whether it's an outright penalty or the loss of a bonus, the result is the same, a loss of accuracy due to being at close range when you're a ranged combatant intending to fight at a distance.

As for whether you have "nothing to gain" by switching to melee weapons, arguably you very well could have something to gain. If you switch to a one-handed weapon with nothing in the off-hand, you'll get an accuracy bonus. Or you could choose to use a shield with that 1H weapon to get a greater deflection bonus. Or you could switch to a pair of weapons. Or you could switch to a 2H weapon, though I'm not sure that you'd gain much there. It seems to me that there are plenty of advantages to be had, not even factoring in the possibility that your melee weapon of choice may have some nice effects that make it more worth using than your ranged weapon.

Except it's not semantics, it's a very important difference, especially in a case like this. You've lost that bonus whether you switch weapons or not; it has no bearing.

As for the switching to melee weapons, out of what you listed, only one stands out as having any actual benefit - Shields. If you are just about to die, and you desperately do not want to die, then the abysmal gain you will get from switching to a shield might keep you alive for another swing, maybe two. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the gain from a shield, unless you specialize for it, is not really worth it. It is one of the reasons the tank-vs-non-tank dichotomy is so strong in this game - you need to pump the Deflection high to make it really worth it.

But it *could* still help you avoid a blow that could kill you. It's unlikely, but it's still something worth considering.

Crucis

Posted 25 April 2015 - 02:55 AM

Crucis

(10) Necromancer

Members

1597 posts

But second, more importantly, for that note on your Stiletto backups, Pillars of Eternity does not have any penalty for shooting in melee, for some daft and utterly bizarre reason. So you will likely never be in a situation where you'll need to switch over to another weapon set.

It does in a way. The Wood Elf racial and the talent Marksman don't work in melee and seeing how most melee weapons are good at interrupting while most ranged weapons are vulnerable to interrupts, there is a sort of built-in drawback to having a gun in your hand when someones flails at you violently in close range

Removing a conditional bonus is not the same thing as imposing a penalty. The conditionals imposed to Woodie racials and the Marksman Talent are balancing factors, not circumstantial penalties. Also, this still means that there is no difference between shooting someone at point-blank range and to get out your melee weapons. Once engaged, you have lost those bonuses, anyway (and, indeed, did so as soon as the opponent was within 4 metres) and you gain nothing by switching to melee weapons - which was the point I was making.

If you are specialized for ranged combat, the idea that you will switch to melee weapons for added Interrupt appears positively pathetic, judging by trade-offs. Interrupts are rare and ****ty, either way, and it won't make a difference to you in the end. Then you might as well switch to an Arbalest instead and it's 0,75 sec Interrupt, if that's what you're after.

This seems like semantics to me. If you're playing a Wood Elf ranged specialist (whether rogue or ranger) and you're predicating your build on the Wood Elf's range bonuses, losing those bonuses because the enemy gets in your face seems rather like a penalty to me, whether it's called one or not. Also, IIRC, the Marksman talent gives its acc bonus vs distant targets, so that's another bonus that would be lost if an enemy gets in your face when you're a ranged combatant. Whether it's an outright penalty or the loss of a bonus, the result is the same, a loss of accuracy due to being at close range when you're a ranged combatant intending to fight at a distance.

As for whether you have "nothing to gain" by switching to melee weapons, arguably you very well could have something to gain. If you switch to a one-handed weapon with nothing in the off-hand, you'll get an accuracy bonus. Or you could choose to use a shield with that 1H weapon to get a greater deflection bonus. Or you could switch to a pair of weapons. Or you could switch to a 2H weapon, though I'm not sure that you'd gain much there. It seems to me that there are plenty of advantages to be had, not even factoring in the possibility that your melee weapon of choice may have some nice effects that make it more worth using than your ranged weapon.

Except it's not semantics, it's a very important difference, especially in a case like this. You've lost that bonus whether you switch weapons or not; it has no bearing.

As for the switching to melee weapons, out of what you listed, only one stands out as having any actual benefit - Shields. If you are just about to die, and you desperately do not want to die, then the abysmal gain you will get from switching to a shield might keep you alive for another swing, maybe two. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that the gain from a shield, unless you specialize for it, is not really worth it. It is one of the reasons the tank-vs-non-tank dichotomy is so strong in this game - you need to pump the Deflection high to make it really worth it.

But it *could* still help you avoid a blow that could kill you. It's unlikely, but it's still something worth considering.

"Except it's not semantics, it's a very important difference, especially in a case like this. You've lost that bonus whether you switch weapons or not; it has no bearing."

See to me, it's the second sentence that has no bearing. It's the first sentence that matters more to me. Words means things, and meanings matter. So to me, the loss of a bonus on which a character is predicated is a penalty, whether called one or not. This is a matter of principle to me regarding the use of language, not a matter of whether the bonus is lost whether you switch to melee weapons or not. The latter is of little concern to me in the face of the question about the use of language. So sue me. I'm picky that way.

As for the value of a shield being worth it, I agree that on a dedicated ranged character, the use of a shield may not matter much in the end, because the chances are pretty good that said character isn't wearing particularly heavy armor and may not have a particularly high base deflection rating, even before equipping the shield.

It probably points to one of the problems I have with the way that PoE's stat system works. And that is that one's DEX has no bearing on one's ability to avoid being hit, i.e. your deflection. And yet your "Resolve" does? Makes no sense to me. I can see Perception having a bearing insofar as you're reading what the other guy is doing and acting to avoid that action. Also, high DEX characters have spent a pretty fair number of stat points to get that DEX and will fairly clearly have fewer to spend on PER and RES to get a high DEFL. I guess is just seems wrong to me that high DEX characters don't gain any direct defensive value from having that high DEX. Ranged combatants, but particularly faster firing archers, can fire faster by having a higher DEX and wearing lighter armor. But in doing so, they make themselves easier targets to hit because they have both a lower DEFL as well as a lower DR. The lower DR is fair enough, but not the lower DEFL, at least to me. Of course, I also tend to think that DEX should be providing an accuracy bonus as well.

Crucis

Posted 25 April 2015 - 07:17 AM

Crucis

(10) Necromancer

Members

1597 posts

Pistol vs Blunderbuss? Neither. Arquabus or Arbalest. Why? Greater range means that if you manage things correctly, you can take the first shot of a battle (which should automatically be a sneak attack) from BEHIND your primary tank, thus causing the enemy to attack him and not your rogue. Also, I'd go for high single shot damage so that your sneak attacks (and regular attacks) only have to pen the target's DR once, rather than multiple times as the blunderbuss does (I think).

Yeah but as I mentioned I picked Weapon Focus: Ruffian not Soldier. Even if I try and see if I can change that through IE Mod then I would only have two plus points from that weapon focus. Ruffian is completely useful for a Rogue, ( In my opinion that is. ) while Soldier would only make Arbalest and Arquebus useful for my Hearth Orlan Rogue. Again this is just my personal opinion, so it may not be yours or others.

Sorry, I only read the first paragraph of your post.

I don't want to be buttonholed into any single WF set with a rogue. It's not too big a deal for melee characters as their choices aren't usually too constricting. But with ranged specialists like ranged rogues and rangers, getting stuck with single WF set forces you to either stick with that WF set's choices or you ignore that oh-so-nice +6 accuracy bonus to use weapons outside of the WF set.

Honestly, I haven't picked a WF for my rogue for this reason. It's let me switch from having her use a crossbow to an arquabus, to considering using a warbow as a secondary ranged weapon without having to feel the pain of losing a +6 WF set bonus for doing so.

This is a reason why I said in another thread that I'm growing to dislike the existing WF groups as currently constituted.

You do have a point there, I might try that with another ranged character in the future. Would solve the dilemma of which weapon to choose, simply use the best weapon you find and like ... nice I will remember that.

It just occurred to me that there's a slightly different way to view this point. If you're strictly playing a specialist ranged combatant who wants the freedom to use any ranged weapon without being constricted by a WF, you could take the Marksman talent. Probably would anyways, but stick with me. But by not taking a WF (assuming that you'd take Marksman anyways), you could put the talent you saved by not taking a WF into some other talent that would enhance your character's ranged abilities. Envenom Weapon, Penetrating Shot, Arms Bearer (another weapons slot), or some class specific ones.

Gs11

Posted 07 October 2015 - 10:32 PM

Also, I'd go for high single shot damage so that your sneak attacks (and regular attacks) only have to pen the target's DR once, rather than multiple times as the blunderbuss does (I think).

Depends on the Damage Reduction of your targets. Blunderbuss has to punch through your target's Damage Reduction six times, Pistol only once.And if you go Blunderbuss, you want the Penetrating Shot talent, as its effect is basically applied six times for the Blunderbuss while still only getting the attack speed malus once.

what is the whole point and diffrence/ advantage/disadvantage between 6x times multiple DR and one DMG? don't completely understand what these authors wanted to say.

I see this choose betwen pistol/blunderbuss like :

- blunderbuss 6x average dmg with average DR enemies versus good pistol but not as good, which give better result and outrun pistol on NOT POTD

-blunderbuss 6x very poor/min dmg with high DR enemies versus still good pistol , so pistol wins on POTD

KDubya

Posted 07 October 2015 - 11:25 PM

The pistol fires one shot and has to penetrate the targets DR just once.

The blunderbuss fires six shots all of which can miss, graze, hit or crit independently and each has to penetrate the enemy DR.

Here is an example: enemy has 0 DR

Pistol does 22-30 damage with a 6 DR bypass. An average shot does 26 damage

Blunderbuss does 6-9 damage with 4 DR bypass and fire six bullets. An average shot does 7.5 damage x 6 = 45 damage

At enemy DR = 10

Pistol does 26-10 - - 6 = 22 damage

Blunderbuss does 7.5 - 10 - -4 = 1.5 x6 = 9 damage

Add in penetrating shot for -5 DR

Pistol does 26-10- -6 - -5 = 26 damage

Blunderbuss does 7.5- 10 - -4 - -5 = 6.5x6 = 39 damage

PotD doesn't change which you'd want to use. It depends on how much DR the target has and how much DR penetration you have. That is why Lead Splitter is nice is because it has an extra 3 DR penetration.

A Cipher with the DR drain power (I think its Body Attunement) with Penetrating shot and Lead Splitter can bypass 20 DR. Shooting someone in plate is the same as shooting someone naked